CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE Summary of Study and Findings

I examined enrollment and placement of students with disabilities in charter schools compared to traditional public schools. I found systematic underrepresentation of students with disabilities in charter schools over the span of six years. This was especially the case for disability categories that required intensive supports and services, which are generally expensive. These disability categories included students with emotional impairments, intellectual impairments, developmental delays and autism. I also found charter schools failed to provide an array of services consistent with mandates from the IDEA of 2004. Specifically, students in charter schools were more likely to be placed in full inclusion settings compared to traditional public school districts. Consequently, this made sense, given traditional public school districts enrolled a higher percentage of students with severe needs, who typically cannot be educated in a full inclusion setting. Finally, I found significant variability in compliance levels under state and federal regulations for charter schools. Most charter schools were cited for corrective action in special education indicators that had a direct impact on students and the services

provided. Specifically, charter schools were cited for corrective action most often under the following categories; (1) assessment of students (2) student identification and

program placement; (3) parent and community involvement; (4) student support services and; (5) faculty, staff and administration.

expectations of providing a full continuum of supports and services for students with disabilities. This was especially relevant for students with severe needs that were disproportionately enrolled in traditional public school districts throughout the state because they offered the full continuum of supports. Concentrating students with disabilities in traditional public school districts represents segregation practices and because students with severe needs represent higher-than-average costs, this imbalance is not financially sustainable for traditional public school districts (Lake, Miron & Noguera, 2014). Furthermore, it’s not good for the reputation of the charter schools to make claims that they serve the neediest students – just not “that” kind of needy (Lake et al., 2014). If charter schools want to expand across the state and be considered an equitable school choice for all students, they must educate a similar population of students with disabilities as traditional public school districts.

Federal and state laws prohibit the exclusion of students with disabilities from charter schools, yet the same trends for enrollment and placement of students with disabilities in Massachusetts has not changed over the last ten years. When Blackwell (2012) analyzed enrollment and placement for school years 2005-2006 through 2009- 2010, he found charter schools disproportionately underrepresented students with disabilities. Specifically, students with autism, emotional impairments and intellectual impairments were disproportionately underrepresented in charter schools throughout the state (Blackwell, 2012). My analysis of charter enrollment for the subsequent six years, showed charter schools continued to disproportionately underrepresent students with disabilities in Massachusetts. Students with autism, emotional impairments, intellectual impairments, sensory impairments and developmental delays were significantly less

likely to be enrolled in charter schools. While students with health impairments and neurological impairments were more likely to be enrolled in charter schools. These findings were consistent with previous studies conducted in Massachusetts regarding enrollment and placement of students with disabilities in charter schools (Blackwell, 2012; Wilkens, 2009).

In looking at the district-to-district comparisons, charter schools in the

Commissioner’s Districts were less likely to enroll students with disabilities, except for Boston. This is especially concerning given urban districts typically have the highest percentages of students with disabilities in the state. Since the Commissioner’s Districts are considered underperforming, and in the lowest 10% based on statewide student achievement scores, they have the highest charter cap compared to other districts in the state. Data indicated these urban districts are less likely to enroll students with

disabilities, specifically students with severe disabilities. Therefore, claims charter schools located in these districts are outperforming traditional public school districts are misleading. A closer examination as to why charter schools located in the

Commissioner’s districts are disproportionately underrepresenting students with disabilities is warranted.

With regards to compliance, charter schools showed significant variability in following state and federal regulations under the IDEA. This is concerning since these regulations protect students with disabilities. Charter schools consistently received partially implemented or not implemented ratings on many indicators. Since the MADESE conducts the CPR, each SE indictor in which a charter school is rated “partially implemented” or “not implemented” requires corrective action. Therefore,

when the MADESE visits charter schools for the mid-cycle review, three years after the full CPR, they will look specifically at those indicators to ensure they have been

remedied. Massachusetts has developed a strong accountability system through the CPR process that will help charter schools understand their obligations under the IDEA. However, charter schools that are consistently cited for non-compliance with state and federal regulations should be required to go through a state-developed training program to support their efforts in ensuring all staff understand their obligations under the IDEA, as a remedy for this challenge.

Contributions to Research

This research was conducted to extend the work of Blackwell (2012) and Wilkins (2009) from five years prior to determine if enrollment and placement practices have changed in Massachusetts charter schools. As the debate to open more charter schools continues, it is critical to understand the population charter schools serve to inform our policy and practice in Massachusetts. It is also important as we look towards developing a stronger education system that welcomes and supports all students regardless of

disability category. If charter schools are going to offer innovative programs and services, as well as, choice opportunities for families, they need to be prepared to serve all students with disabilities. The fact that disproportionate enrollment and placement for students with disabilities has continued over the last decade raises significant concerns. Based on these findings a stronger collaboration to support charter schools’ recruitment of students with disabilities is critical.

Disproportionate underrepresentation of students with disabilities in Massachusetts’ charter schools, specifically students with severe disabilities, raise

concerns as policymakers advocate for charter school expansion. While charter schools increased the percentage of students with disabilities enrolled over the six-year span (15.1%), charter schools did not enroll an equal percentage of students with disabilities compared to traditional public school districts (19.1%) One possibility is charter schools may be overtly or covertly discouraging students with disabilities from attending

(Blackwell, 2012). Typically, students with severe disabilities are more expensive to educate given their high level of need and often require services outside the general education classroom. Considering charter schools educate most of their students with disabilities in full inclusion settings, students with severe disabilities that require services in partial inclusion or substantially separate settings, may be discouraged from enrolling or remaining in charter schools (Blackwell, 2012). If students with severe disabilities are not successful in full inclusion settings, there is very little opportunity for other

placements in charter schools. As data indicated many charter schools place most students with disabilities in full inclusion settings.

Additional concerns are raised regarding disproportionate placement of students with disabilities in charter schools compared to traditional public school districts. Charter regulations in Massachusetts require charter schools to offer a full continuum of services, from full inclusion to substantially separate programming. Therefore, the percentage of students in each placement, should be relatively equal for both charter and traditional public school districts. Data indicated charter schools placed fewer students in

substantially separate placements, which provided further evidence charter schools are not enrolling students with severe needs, as students with severe needs often require a unique set of services that cannot typically be provided in a full inclusion setting.

Placement is important as placement decisions may influence enrollment levels for students with disabilities (GAO Report, 2012). Charter schools are less likely to enroll students with severe disabilities if they cannot provide the appropriate special education programming. This can happen for several reasons as charter schools may not have the same capacity, resources (e.g. space), knowledge, or experience to serve students with severe needs (GAO Report, 2012). This appears to be a feasible explanation for why data over the span of ten years show students with severe disabilities are less likely to be enrolled in charter schools in Massachusetts, since charter schools place most students with disabilities in full inclusion.

It is expected charter schools will enroll similar percentages of students with disabilities considering charter schools receive the same per pupil funding to educate students with disabilities as traditional public school districts. This would include students with severe disabilities, including intellectual impairments, emotional

impairments, and autism. It is concerning this pattern of enrollment has not changed in charter schools over the last ten years. By enrolling students with mild/moderate disabilities, charter schools are not educating the same population of students as

traditional public school districts. Consequently, traditional public schools are working to support a population of students with more significant needs and specialized supports, with the same per pupil funding, while charter schools are not.

Part of the disproportionality may not be due to charter schools’ unwillingness to serve a diverse population of students, but because charter schools are not prioritizing the enrollment of students with disabilities during the development and design phases of their charters (Blackwell, 2012; Wilkens, 2009). Considering there have been limited to no

change in the enrollment practices for Massachusetts’ charter schools in the last ten years, we should look to policymakers to answer the questions Blackwell (2012) posed, “What types of policy levers can be used to ensure charter schools enroll and educate a

representative range of learners?” and “How can the innovative qualities of charter schools be designed to serve all students?”

The easiest solution would be to look towards additional financial support for charter schools and special education programming for the neediest populations.

However, providing financial relief to charter schools would not ensure they are prepared and equipped to provide students with severe disabilities the education they require to be successful. Given the specific needs of students with intellectual impairments, emotional impairments and autism, charter leaders and teachers need specific training around how to develop curricula that benefit a range of students, as opposed to one-size-fits-all. Therefore, it would make sense to require charter schools to demonstrate the capacity and willingness to serve a broad range of students with disabilities during the charter

application process. The capacity to educate all students should begin at the charter school’s inception and be evident in the mission of the school, as well as, the instructional and curricular design for the school (Blackwell, 2012).

To avoid accusations of bias in admissions, planning for students with disabilities during the application process is critical, as charter schools frequently point out they offer equitable enrollment through the lottery process (Lake, Miron & Noguera, 2014).

However, anecdotal evidence obtained from parents across the country, suggested in some cases, parents are counseled to take their children out of charter schools due to an inappropriate “fit” or explicitly told the school lacks the resources to meet their child’s

needs (Lake et al., 2014). While the extent of such practices is difficult to document, there is evidence the lottery process itself is unlikely to include parents of some of the most disadvantaged and needy children (Lake et al., 2014; Betts & Tang, 2011; COPAA, 2012). This includes not only parents of students with severe disabilities, but parents of undocumented or homeless children, and parents who may be overwhelmed by life circumstances, who are less likely to participate in a lottery (Lake et al., 2014). While these are significant concerns, we should not lose sight of the most critical issue: special education students should be in schools, whether charter or public, that have the

resources and trained staff to meet their needs (Lake et al., 2014).

Providing all students access to a quality public education is the cornerstone upon which the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was developed. Therefore, in accordance with both federal and state regulations, students with disabilities,

regardless of disability category, should have the same access and equitable treatment in charter schools as typically developing peers. Charter schools are open to all students in the community and promote themselves as such. However, the findings from this study are consistent with two previous studies (Blackwell, 2012; Wilkens, 2009), which have shown charter schools in Massachusetts disproportionately under-enroll students with disabilities.

Implications for Practice

There are several ways in which this research can have implications on current and future practice. Charter schools should serve the same populations as the district schools in which they are located. It is clear from research over the last decade that is not the case. Therefore, policymakers and charter leaders should look at developing a plan to

encourage students with disabilities to attend charter schools and support charter schools in serving students with severe disabilities. This includes ensuring charter schools can provide the full continuum of special education services from full inclusion to

substantially separate settings.

Policymakers should encourage charter schools to develop charter applications that include students with disabilities and their plan to serve this population, specifically students with severe disabilities. The current charter application process requires

consideration of recruitment and retention for students with disabilities in the application. However, there is not an in-depth planning process for how the unique needs of students with disabilities will be met. This may contribute to students with disabilities attrition from charter schools or discourage them from attending altogether. The charter should include not only a plan for recruitment, but how students with disabilities will receive the services needed to access the curriculum and make progress. This includes professional development opportunities for staff to understand best practices in special education and how to implement IEPs.

It is recommended the approval of an application for a charter school be

dependent in part upon the ability of the applicant to show evidence of special education preparedness, including expertise in matters of programming, requirements of law, financial arrangements and provision of related services (Estes, 2000). This would support schools, their faculty, their parents, and their students, as an integral part of the application process would be a requirement that all faculty and staff complete a training program in which the most elementary concepts and basic procedures of the IDEA are explained (Estes, 2000).

Since charter schools place a strong emphasis on full inclusion, the charter should include a plan of how students with severe disabilities will be served in an inclusive setting (e.g. through a co-teaching model, assistive technology, etc.). For students that cannot be served in full inclusion models, there should be an explanation of the continuum that will be provided in the charter school. Challenges arise when charter schools in Massachusetts identify a student that requires a specialized program that charter schools are not mandated to provide. Interestingly, many of these specialized programs are designed to serve students with emotional impairments, intellectual

impairments and autism, the three disability categories that are least likely to be enrolled in charter schools. Since traditional school districts offer specialized programs they are required to take students with severe disabilities back from charter schools when the charter school determines that they cannot meet the student’s needs.

Since charter schools are not mandated to create specialized programs for students with disabilities per the MADESE, but must provide a continuum of services, there should be some discussion around how charter schools can create capacity in this regard. One potential option is to examine current policy regarding what charter schools are mandated to provide for special education services. If students with severe disabilities enroll in a charter school and require a substantially separate placement with a specific service, (e.g. discrete trial training and PECS for students with autism or therapeutic programming for students with emotional impairments), then charter schools should work collaboratively and partner to develop these programs.

Cities with large numbers of charter schools, like Denver, New Orleans and New York City, have built special education collaboratives, co-ops and financial risk pools so

that all charter schools have the capacity to serve all disability categories (Lake et al., 2014). Some states offer charter schools the opportunity to apply for grants to develop innovative new approaches to special education (Lake et al., 2014). State and district leaders should create funding structures and partnerships to ensure charter school autonomies lead to innovations and improvements in special education, not just general education (Lake et al., 2014). Policymakers and state leaders can accomplish this by supporting rigorous recruitment and admission practices, ensuring schools are getting their fair share of funding, giving charter schools access to special education expertise and networks, and promoting innovative new approaches through grants and charter- district partnerships (Lake et al., 2014).

In addition to reviewing state policy for charter schools, future research should look at investigating enrollment practices in charter schools including why parents of students with disabilities choose or do not choose to enroll their child in a charter school. It is critical to track the number of students with severe disabilities in charter schools to determine if they remain in charter schools throughout their academic career. A closer examination of the students with disabilities that enroll in charter schools, but ultimately leave, and the reasons why, will provide valuable insight into how charter schools are meeting the needs of this subgroup. Understanding why students with severe disabilities choose not to enroll or do not remain in charter schools after they enroll, will allow us to provide targeted support and professional development in these specific areas to decrease continued discrepancies in enrollment for students with disabilities.

Conclusion

with disabilities exists. There are three studies that specifically examined charter enrollment for students with disabilities in the state of Massachusetts (Wilkens, 2009; Blackwell, 2012; Setren, 2015). Two of these studies were completed over five years ago (Wilkens, 2009; Blackwell, 2012), while the charter movement has continued to evolve and gain support in the last five years. This study sought to add to the current research on students with disabilities in charter schools in Massachusetts. The MADESE is

commended on their data collection methods for enrollment and placement of students with disabilities in public schools throughout the state. As the state continues to provide guidance on how charter schools recruit and retain students, rigorous data collection methods are warranted to increase accountability for charter schools consistently underserving students with disabilities, particularly students with severe needs. The issues involving special education programming are complex and cannot be addressed through simplistic recruitment and retention plans, but must be demonstrated through